SpindleyQ/kliffy
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

authors notes

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Jeremy Penner 2011-03-03 22:42:38 -08:00
parent db65294e2c
commit 813f1d10e6
1 changed files with 29 additions and 12 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

41
timemachine.xml
View file

@ -134,23 +134,40 @@
<nev name="start">
<h2>Author's Notes</h2>
<p>
Hi there. That's all I've got for now. Thanks for trying my silly game.
Hi there. That's all I've got for now. Here's some thoughts about what I'm trying to accomplish.
</p>
<p>
There are two UI ideas at play in this prototype. The first is that it might be interesting to see what
There are two ideas at play in this prototype. The first is that it might be interesting to see what
happens when we get rid of the parser, and simply give the player the ability to know what she is capable of
doing at any particular moment in the game. I don't believe that every game should follow this path, but
I don't see any reason why we can't create rich and interesting worlds by doing so. What appeals to me about
this idea is not just the simpler interaction from the user's perspective, but the ability to have greater
control of what you have to model. If something is not important to your game, you simply don't present the
option to the player, and she is not frustrated because she no longer has any way of trying it. Conversely,
if an interaction is subtle or non-standard, you don't need to worry about the user not being able to guess
the verb -- the verb is there; you just need to make it interesting.
doing at any particular moment in the game. I don't see any reason why we can't create rich and interesting
worlds by doing so. What appeals to me about this idea is not just the simpler interaction from the user's
perspective, but the ability to have greater control of what the author has to model -- if something is not
important to your game, you simply don't present the option to the player. Conversely, if an interaction is
subtle or non-standard, you don't need to worry about teaching the player what the parser understands -- the
verb is there. Your job is to make it interesting.
</p>
<p>
The second is that
The second is to allow the player to interact with the story at any point that he has uncovered. Quite
frankly, I am really uncomfortable making big decisions in most games. But a game should be the perfect
place to make big decisions and explore the consequences!
What bothers me is not that the consequences are unknown, but that my actions are irrevocable; that if I do
something that I later understand was foolish, I am unlikely to be given a chance to redeem myself without
playing through the game again. Always showing the player the entire story and allowing him to make changes
at any point is a promise that he will never be punished for trying something, even if his character
is; that he can learn from mistakes and move on. In this way, I can construct much harsher situations than may
ordinarily be considered "fair"; I can do away with repetition of description and dialogue "just in case" the
player forgets the vital information contained within; I can allow the player to dig himself into a hole, because
I can give him the tools to quickly dig himself out.
</p>
<b><a href="javascript:location.reload()">Restart game</a></b>
</nev>
<p>
I guess there's the time travel bit, too. I don't advise trying it, personally; building a model of the world
in code where causality can occasionally be violated turned out to be much more difficult and time-consuming
than I expected. I have no explaination for why I would have thought coding time travel paradoxes would be easy.
</p>
<p>
I would love to hear any and all feedback about your experience playing this game. I can be reached
at jeremy dot penner at gmail dot com. Thanks for playing.
</p>
</nev>
</section>
</story>